I have become increasingly concerned with the comments on Facebook and other Internet sources which seem to indicate that the majority of the national leadership of the Constitution Party, and particularly members of the National Executive Committee, are pursuing an agenda of promoting a theocratic government for our country. Though I cannot speak for each person individually, I can certainly speak for the large majority of the both the Executive and National Committee members.

The argument stems from the preamble of the national platform which states and I quote

“The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”

Comment is also made of the platform statement “The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.”

Those who feel the party leadership is promoting a theocracy for our government would do well to give careful study to the writings and minutes kept by James Madison and other Founding Fathers who attended and participated in the Convention in Philadelphia that produced the Constitution. Thirty four percent of the quotes presented at the convention were from Biblical sources and yet that body of men did not even consider that their new government would be a Theocracy. So why then was the Bible so often quoted by these men in the Constitutional Convention?

They were among the wisest and most well-versed men in history to ever meet as one body and they fully understood that the principles taught in the Bible were the source of good and sound government. First and foremost, they understood that our rights came from our Creator and not from the laws of man. In addition to the 10 commandments, they were fully aware of the many other concepts of good government whose origin came from both Old Testament (Jewish history) and New Testament (Christian writings) Among those records were the concepts of Representative Government; the right of an accused to be heard by a jury of his peers; the understanding that men are innocent until proven guilty; the concept that the truth of a matter had to be witnessed by at least two and preferably more witnesses, Also established in those histories was the right to own and to protect one’s property; that the best government came from the bottom up and only those matters that could not be decided locally should be brought up to be considered at a higher level. The list could go on and on. These were based on the premise of self-government by a moral and virtuous people. These concepts are the basis of Common Law and the Laws of Nature. Again, the Founders clearly understood that the government they gave us could survive only among a virtuous and moral citizenry.

This necessitated that for the Constitution to be a successful form of government for a free and liberty loving people, we as a people must be a moral and virtuous people, a characteristic of a God-fearing people. The Founders fully understood the dangers of a state religion that controlled the governments in Europe, but they likewise understood the importance of religion in fostering and furthering the concepts of good government. One of the stipulations of the Northwest Ordinance of 1785 was that religion be taught in those territories. Now the teaching of religion in the public schools is forbidden. How far we have strayed from what the Founding Fathers envisioned for our nation!

Over and over again, the Founders recognized the hand of Providence in both freeing ourselves from British Rule and in the drafting and adopting of the Constitution. George Washington alone listed 76 times in which the hand of Providence intervened in behalf of the colonies. They readily understood that without such help, our nation would have never been possible. Why we as Americans cannot recognize that, and acknowledge the need for that same Providential assistance in restoring that government that the Founding Fathers bequeathed us is of grave concern to me.

The principles promoted by the party are good and praise worthy and in time they hopefully will be achieved. But for any of us to think those goals can be reached without each of us incorporating virtuous values in our individual lives is hoping for something that can never happen. Acknowledging the Hand of Providence in our party’s preamble is only fitting. The does not mean that the wording in the preamble cannot be changed. The party leadership is open to such a consideration, but to exclude reference to Providential assistance in the freeing of our nation from Britain and the establishment of the Constitution is a disservice to the Founding Fathers as well as the founders on the Constitution Party. That would be akin to turning our backs on history.

Promoting the sound concepts of good government given to us by the Founders is totally different than promoting a theocratic government. Whose interpretation of the scriptures is correct? That is something that the various theologians and religious leaders are free to discuss, but under no circumstances are they to be imposed on the citizens of our nation by the force of government. The Founders of our nation were totally opposed to that approach as are the majority of the national and executive committee members of the Constitution Party. These things are to be self-imposed and the Founders well understood it. The leadership of the Constitution Party is in full accord with this understanding.

The Constitution Party represents more than electioneering. We are a cause. Who else champions the Constitution when it comes to the issues of the day?

Is there any party or candidate who makes the argument that the “gay marriage” fight is not over? We remind voters that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the right to restrain the Supreme Court’s power. Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states:

“The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to
Law and Fact, with such Exceptions and under Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

The Supreme Court has not “settled” the issue, and we are the only ones in the election arena who dare to prove it so. That’s why the Constitution Party aims to educate and motivate — we have developed tools that explain who we are and what we stand for.

I urge you to stock up on ammunition during this election year battle.

To revive hope for a logical, constitutional argument advocating traditional marriage, we have produced an issue card — outlining the problem and solution, attractively designed, and available at a very low price.

Finally, when we discuss the issues, we must do so with a solid understanding of the Constitution itself. That’s why we have made special arrangement with the publishers to offer an autographed copy of the brand new book, How to Read the Constitution by Paul Skousen.

This is a essential handbook in the fight for freedom is shipped, postage paid, for a gift of $35.

How to Read the Constitution will help you to frame the argument of why we call ourselves Constitutionists and not just Conservatives.

Be sure you have this ammunition for the election.

Cordially,

Frank Fluckiger,National Chairman,Constitution Party

P.S. You may call-in your order for the above materials to expedite shipping: 1-800-VETO-IRS (1-800-283-8647).

James Madison wisely observed, “When the variety and number of political parties increases, the chance for oppression, factionalism, and non-skeptical acceptance of ideas decreases.”

Marginalized policy initiatives can often bubble up into the mainstream because of independent candidates and third parties. In his book Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System, political strategist Douglas Schoen noted, “While third party movements and candidates have periodically emerged to challenge the status quo … none have ever come close to winning, though they did end up having a significant impact on policy formation as a result of their campaigns.”

Although the success of the Prohibition Party was fleeting, it is a good model of how an issue can come from a single constituency, evolve into a formidable political force, and flex muscle on Capitol Hill.

The Prohibition Party has run candidates for President in every election since 1872, but none received more than 300,000 votes or about two percent of the ballots cast. However, its candidates for state and federal office often siphoned off votes that cost the major party nominees their winning margins. That proved to be powerful political leverage. In the 1918 contest for US Senate in Colorado, incumbent Democrat John Shafroth polled 48 percent of the vote, but Prohibition Party candidate P. A. Richardson, who nabbed just 2.58 percent, gave the Republican nominee the edge – one of the two seats the GOP needed for majority status on Capitol Hill.

The Prohibition Party applied anti-establishment political pressure while bi-partisan grass roots organizations such as the Anti-Saloon League worked within the apparatus of the two major parties. The chemical reaction resulted in a Constitutional Amendment establishing prohibition as public policy.

The Libertarian Party has been a deciding factor in many elections in the past 45 years. In 1998, Majority Leader Harry Reid was re-elected by only 428 votes while the Libertarian candidate pulled in 8,000 supporters. In 2002, the country’s most hard-fought Senate race was in South Dakota. Republican John Thune lost to the Democrat incumbent, Senator Tim Johnson, by 524 votes, much less than the 3,000 votes for the Libertarian candidate.

The movement in favor of the legalization of marijuana consists of non-partisan operations including the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which has a network of 135 chapters. The marijuana issue is a well-known plank of the Libertarian Party’s platform since its formation in 1971.

Libertarian Party political operatives had an impact on the passage of the 2012 Colorado referendum to decriminalize the use of marijuana – it had already elected two city councilmen and a sheriff on their party line in the state. In addition, the Marijuana Policy Project spent one million dollars advocating the Colorado initiative. Just like the movement for prohibition, non-partisan grassroots operations combined with a political punch, yielded results.

The Reform Party nominated Texas billionaire Ross Perot as its presidential candidate in 1992. Perot hammered away on the issues of reducing the deficit and the importance of a balanced budget, issues previously ignored in elections. They now are a standard part of every national campaign. The winner of the election, Bill Clinton, coordinated a bi-partisan coalition that created several balanced-budget deals to put the government in the black.

History is on the side of third party movements because they are willing to touch third rail issues. The Prohibition and Socialist parties promoted women’s suffrage during the late 1800s, and by 1916 both Republicans and Democrats supported it. In the 1850’s, a new party, the Republicans, buried the traditional Whig Party as they rallied around a major social justice issue, the abolition of slavery.

Third parties can represent regional interests as well. In 1968, American Independent Party candidate George Wallace earned 45 electoral votes. The way he split the Democratic base led to the Republican Southern strategy that produced another sea change in American politics.

According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post survey, 48 percent of voters say they would prefer a third-party candidate to run. A recent Associated Press/University of Chicago poll revealed that 71 percent of millennials want an alternative to the Republican and Democrat nominees. Still, many voters view third parties as irrelevant, perhaps even worse than useless. The general assumption is if a third party candidate has no chance of winning, then it is foolish to lower the chances of the next-best, big-party candidate. Voting for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate who can win would be better than voting for an ideal candidate who will lose. However, “winnability” doesn’t matter as much as one might think. If a third party candidate can influence, even bully, the political power elites they score goals.

Permit me to channel Teddy Roosevelt: “The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day.” He’s so right: America needs a third party – actually, a fourth, fifth and tenth party.

There is no free market of ideas, candidates, or political parties on Election Day.

It’s not for a lack of demand. According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post survey, 57 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; 44 percent say they would prefer a third-party candidate to run. A recent Associated Press/University of Chicago poll revealed that 71 percent of millennials want an alternative to the Republican and Democrat nominees.

In another survey, Public Policy Polling matched “a giant meteor hitting the earth” against Clinton and Trump. The killer asteroid nabbed 13 percent of the vote, far more than any third party now ballot qualified.

The establishment parties benefit from strict ballot access laws that make it difficult for alternative candidates to participate in elections. In order to get on the ballot, independent and third party candidates must meet a variety of byzantine state-specific filing requirements. Complex stipulations and regulations determine whether voters will be able to choose from a larger pool of parties and candidates.

Unorthodox candidates must undergo bureaucratic and burdensome trials in all 50 states before they are permitted to run for office. And the laws have proven effective: no independent or third party presidential candidate has won an electoral vote in 48 years.

To get on the ballot nationwide this year, it is estimated that a maverick presidential candidate must have more than 880,000 signatures on petitions. The major parties regularly challenge the legitimacy of ballot access petitions (leaving out a middle initial is among many reasons that a name can be considered invalid), so securing a ratio of two-to-one of the required number of signatures is the pragmatic strategy for campaigns. That means an army of petitioners going door-to-door should collect about 1.76 million names in 2016. If that becomes difficult to manage, a candidate may hire professional solicitors who charge $2.50-$5.00 per signature. You do the math.

Consider how the ballot access system currently works: Texas requires independent candidates to collect 79,939 signatures (but double that number to be prudent); to become a recognized political party in North Carolina, signatures equal to two percent of the previous gubernatorial election are necessary — that adds up to 89,336 names (secure about 180,000 to be on the safe side); West Virginia demands 6,706 signatures on ballot access petitions if you want to run for the White House (please turn in twice that amount.) Candidates must also pay a hefty filing fee of $2,500.

Nine states don’t even allow voters to write-in names of their preferred candidates.

The Libertarian Party beat Oklahoma’s tightly controlled process by obtaining more than 42,000 signatures. The petition campaign cost the national party $104,000. For third parties, organizational infrastructure, as well as deep pockets, is vital — running for President means conducting 50 races simultaneously. Start-up campaigns simply do not have the money or the manpower to be competitive with Democrats and Republicans because of the barriers the ruling parties have put in place.

The nation’s leading expert on ballot access laws is Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News. He maintains that, “Ballot access restrictions vary from state to state, but they have one thing in common and that is to prevent people other than Democrats and Republicans from getting on the ballot.”

Disenfranchising candidates is part of the election game as well. Forty-five states have enacted “sore loser” laws denying defeated candidates the right to run a third party or independent campaign. If a candidate believes political power brokers have quashed any chance to win the Democrat or Republican nomination, there is no second chance.

Third party candidate Ralph Nader has observed, “If we all have an equal right to run for election. If they call third-party candidates spoilers but they don’t call their major opponent in the other party a spoiler, they are assigning a second-class citizenship to the third-party candidacy.”

The Gallup organization has found that, “A majority of Americans, 60 percent, say a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic parties ‘do such a poor job’ of representing the American people.” Yet when voters get inside the polling booth, they often find only two candidates listed. Richard Winger asserts, “The extreme disparity of the burdens placed on old, established parties versus new parties has no parallel in any other democratic nation in the world.”

Reasonable ballot access requirements to set qualifying standards are necessary. However, just as poll taxes were set up to keep certain citizens from expressing their right to vote, today’s ballot access laws are deliberately designed to provide a similar obstacle for freethinkers who challenge the political power elites.

In 1775, John Adams warned future generations of American voters that, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” He was so right.